Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

You appear not to understand. No one knows if warming is all man made or just partially man made but thinking that man has had no effect on climate is just too stupid to bother debating.

You might want to read this:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/impact-on-climate-change-and-land-use/

 

And yet you nor anyone else can prove that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current global warming. Show us proof that humans have caused the current global warming.

 

here................https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

which you won't read

 

No proof there. Just white flags waving.

 

As expected, you entirely copped out. I don't blame you, many much more qualified folks have been asked the same questions, and haven't, to date, been able to answer any of the questions with any detail or depth. And that really is the fantasy then that wraps AGW. To have this much faith is no different than any traditional religious devotion, and frankly, I suspect that many in the cult have simply traded what they felt shame in traditional religion, and invested the same in AGW.

 

you seem confused. I directly refuted you claim, with citation, which you didn't read.

 

Repeating the same thing over and over again. Priceless.

 

Stupids asking gotcha questions is about all the climate change deniers have. Take a little effort to educate yourself and read the link I provided and then explain how man cannot be having a major climate impact.

 

A lot of really stupid discussion. No one will ever prove conclusively that man has contributed to global warming.

But there is progress because at least the deniers have stopped claiming that global warming isn’t occurring.

And the consequences if we could have done something but didn’t is significant.

 

The irony ^^^ is palpable. Again you have shown no scientific proof of AGW. Only your faith in the fake consensus is the basis for your belief. If the science is settled why are their multiple models instead of only one ???

You consensus is blown up.

 

You're the one asserting the validity of your citation. The burden of proof is yours. I expect that man can, and does locally change his habitat every day When you find snow inconvenient on the road way, plows remove it exposing the concrete or pavement. It changes the local condition, Paving every square inch of a city surely reduces the natural cooling and shade provided by a natural environment, but the change is local. Again, there is a well documented phenomenon of heat islands, and yup, totally get what they are, and how they work. Unfortunately, those very facts are the ones usually leading the majority of what we see in the temp records that is actually changing the math but not necessarily the climate. We've known this for decades. It's like the little dirty secret that modelers chuckle about privately at the holistic stupidity of the average consumers who then react in fear because of their dishonesty.

 

of course. why would I post anything other than reality? you were provided a citation which directly refutes your position, and you didn't read it.

 

There is the white flag again.

 

The earth is getting warmer. Glaciers all over the world are shrinking. The Greenland and Antartica icecaps are melting. The frozen tundra is thawing and releasing methane. These are facts.

The warming appears to be faster than other warming events in history, which supports the argument that it is human caused. I don't give a S**t about proving the cause. If the ice melts and the seas rise (The current global temperature is melting the ice.), the world is going to be significantly altered, and in a negative way. I believe that it is our responsibility to leave as good a world as we can for our children and grandchildren. If you choose to do nothing, please write an apology to my grandchildren before you die just in case you are wrong.

 

you seem confused. I directly refuted your claim, with citation, which you didn't read.

 

So your theory is all the paving and cities is making the atmosphere warmer but that isn’t AGW. Glad it makes sense to you!

 

There is probably no science you could possibly understand. And yes I am willing to accept the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.

Also just for an analogy there are multiple theories about how cancer works but I doubt even you would claim cancer doesn’t exist. There are also multiple theories of how the universe came to be but you probably wouldn’t deny that it exists.

 

It doesn’t bother crackpots that they are wrong at all. Every when ultimately faced with the truth, they’ll just BS and say they knew it anyway.

 

Ahh, no it isn’t. Evolutional changes vary with each species. Those that adapt quickly, like viruses pose a bigger threat to more complicated species like us. We may be concerned about moving inland at not to rapid a pace, but in the mean time, more infectious diseases which are equipped to handle the change come at us at an increasing rate. It happens when species from warmer climates take their diseases into colder areas that were never equipped to handle them . The vast majority of people you hang with may not give a ****, but the majority does.

 

Clearly, I didn't write that. Sorry you don't understand the differences. What I wrote was that heat islands have a local effect, and collecting data from them artificially impacts the temperature data. The atmosphere isn't actually warmer, especially at altitude. For the atmosphere to be "warmer" it would need to demonstrate this at altitude, which it doesn't. But, locally. at the surface, we see the effects. Question for you though, what is it supposed to be? The temp, that is. What temp would make you feel like you've accomplished something?

 

Consensus of opinion is not scientific proof. Clearly the earth is warming. But there is no proof that human CO2 emissions are responsible for that global warming.

 

It’s pretty sure that in all the universities in the world and all the relevant research facilities , everyone has figured this out.....much more then a poster on a web site.

Every time someone says, “ logically” it means there is no real math involved in the explanation.

 

Clearly, science does not “ prove” anything. If you’re sitting around waiting, find something better to do.
“ clearly the earth is warming” has less to do with AGW. Anyone can see that. What is apparent is, the rate of change is greater during the industrial revolution and not doing anything, is not an option for those of us who actually care.

 

The scientific method is used to prove a hypothesis. The earth is not warming at a faster rate.

 

Please don’t keep repeating this falsehood. It embarrasses the speaker. You aren’t into science are you.

Proving a hypothesis is a math exercise in a closed system like geometry. In science, a hypothesis becomes a “theory” by consensus in an open system . Theories in science are never absolutely true. They are repeatable occurrences under a particular set of conditions. Dissent is welcome.

This idea completely baffles conservatives who never payed much attention to their science classes.

check a definition. It’s an explanation subject to change as more evidence becomes available.
theory
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.